Refactor: Remove unnecessary object spread in conditionalGeneration.js

[Satya900]

Description

I noticed a small code smell in
apps/generator/lib/conditionalGeneration.js.
There is an object literal being spread inside another object literal unnecessarily.

---

Location

File: apps/generator/lib/conditionalGeneration.js
Lines: ~113–116

---

Current Code

const source = jmespath.search({
  ...asyncapiDocument.json(),
  ...{
    server: server ? server.json() : undefined,
  },
}, subject);

---

Proposed Change

We can directly define the property instead of creating a temporary object and spreading it.

const source = jmespath.search({
  ...asyncapiDocument.json(),
  server: server ? server.json() : undefined,
}, subject);

---

Benefits

• Improves code readability
• Removes a redundant operation

[dosubot]

You're right—the object spread inside another object literal is unnecessary here. You can simplify the code by directly defining the server property alongside the spread of asyncapiDocument.json(). This change improves readability and removes a redundant operation without affecting functionality, since both approaches produce the same resulting object structure. There’s no evidence of dependencies or side effects that require the current pattern, so your proposed refactor is safe and aligns with best practices cite.

To reply, just mention @dosu.

---

^{How did I do? Good | Irrelevant | Incorrect | Verbose | Hallucination | Report 🐛 | Other}

   

[ManshaAgarwal716]

Sir,I’d like to work on this issue and raise a PR with the suggested change.Please assign it to me.

[siddharthchauhan3128]

I can take this up. I’ve set up the generator locally and will open a PR shortly.

[siddharthchauhan3128]

I’ve opened a PR addressing this: #1921

[Harsh16gupta]

@siddharthchauhan3128 In asyncapi generator, we usually wait for maintainer approval before opening a PR. Please follow the contributing guidelines.

[Satya900]

i would request maintainers to review this issue whether it is a valid issue or not...

[siddharthchauhan3128]

@Harsh16gupta Thanks for addressing

[Satya900]

@Adi-204 please review this issue and give your feedback on this

[Adi-204]

@Satya900 it make sense, feel free to create a PR!

[Satya900]

@Adi-204 PR for this issue has been raised.

[Adi-204]

closes with #1999